This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Regulatory Crackdown On Goldman Begins
First the Fed, now Goldman Sachs. Hot off the presses:
Examiners at the Financial Regulatory Authority, the industry
self-regulatory body known as Finra, and the Securities and Exchange
Commission intend to ask Goldman for more information on these weekly
get-togethers, people familiar with the matter said.
This of course is in relation to the article that the WSJ printed yesterday on advance research looks that Goldman was providing to its preferential clients.
The huddles currently aren't disclosed in Goldman's long-term research,
although the firm Monday discussed adding disclosure on its client Web
site about the service. Some other firms, such as Morgan Stanley, also
give stock ideas to clients, but disclose the service in their
longer-term research and on their Web site.
Securities laws require firms such as Goldman to engage in "fair
dealing with customers" and prohibit analysts from issuing opinions
that are at odds with their true beliefs about a stock. Research
reports can often cause a stock to rise or fall.
Can someone please explain how FINRA and the SEC would actually chase the perpetrators of market injustice if it wasn't for the occasional articles in the mainstream media and the blogosphere providing them with the blueprints from A to Z of exactly how the big, "entrenched" firms game the "efficient" markets day in and day out?
Last time we checked, the SEC's 2009 budget was almost $1 billion. What the hell does this money go for aside for covering up massive market malfeasance and catching an occasional Ponzi after decades of ignoring incriminatory materials?
It is time to analyze whether the US public has any use for such worthless and expensive organizations as FINRA and the SEC, if at the end of the day the only way to fix a broken system is via a thousand "citizen's" cuts and bypassing Schapiro's utterly useless enterprise, whose only purpose is to serve as a springboard for cushy Wall Street General Counsel jobs.
»
- 10555 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
We're on fire! If this was NBA Jam, the basketball would literally be engulfed in flames.
Now, Most of you are reacting like school kids who have been handed over a new 'candy" recently lunched in the market.
Let me tell you this. "nothing will happen to Goldman Sachs". Material things and "future deliveries" will be discussed and promised. Assholes will come back to their respective seats to warm them so that they will continue with their siesta. The 'dark pool' game will become a little more sophisticated and sinister. Hey, these banks run the Governments, everywhere in the world. So, relax. F*****S know all that is happening for ages. The power and smell of money is so intoxicating that everything else is dispensable. What a crash joke. Investigation about the "huddle"!!!!. This is exactly waht I was afraid of and was praying against. This obscene way of downgrading the serious offences to jokes stuns me. This is no investigation,mate, There will be another huddle. May be exchange of fluids will take place. The tired and satiated suckers will go back to what they know the best. Rape the common folks(their lives I meant).I am losing faith in Obama. I think I behaved like a school kid then. I thought this man is going to bring a true change. Remember the days when he had reservations about speculation in crude market!.
OH FUCK YEAH !!! sorry for being over-enthusiastic and and over-posting but the WIN and the awesomeness of today' information is pure gold.
Yeah!! Fuck GS! Fuck em all - JPM, CITI, BOFA, The FED! The thieves must be prosecuted.
Let me use my personal time machine to tell you how this will workout...
1) The SEC will issue a "fine".
2) GS will deny all wrong doing.
3) The SEC will pat themselves on the back about what a great job they did.
4) The media will report that this behavior has now been stopped, and that everything if "fair" again.
5) GS will issue a press release denying all involvement and activities, and talk about what a wonderful company they are.
6) GS will continuing doing exactly what they are doing right now accept they will be a little more quite about it this time...
Damn it, you're right.
you're probably right
sad but very true
Maybe not.
I'm starting to think that they correctly suspect that if they let The Bezzle continue...
...There will be blood.
I... DRINK... YOUR.... MILKSHAKE!!!
You left off #7.
#7) And then everyone had ice cream.
#8 ) CNBC airs weeklong special "Did Goldman Save the Markets?" Charles delivers the rebuttal.
Only two words will work: "Jail Time"
Anything else is a pathetic slap on the wrist. A fine? Bwah ha ha ha ha ...
Agreed, except that you forgot step 7, in which the SEC will quickly bust a Mark Cuban/Martha Stewart type figure who has engaged in a five figure, better yet, maybe even a (gasp) six figure fraud in an effort to show what good little bureaucratic robots they are.
...repeat, always repeat.
You forgot the Patsy. Always got to be a Patsy.
They won't, nor will their Wall St., let this go through without leaving in their path.
good articles; good articles 4 slow news day ..http://www..
hat tip: finance news & finance opinions
Unfortunately the SEC and FINRA are enablers of the financial corruption. This doesn't mean each and ever employee is, just that leadership is.
Despite the romantic notion that regulatory investigators follow obscure leads to track down evil doers, the fact is an investigator doesn't do anything without permission from above.
This means that key people can hold an entire regulatory agency hostage, which seems to be the case here.
free markets will be the only thing that can regulate effectively. finra and sec are just a false sense of security. hell, so is the fdic. yes i know im too idealistic blah blah blah
they may put a little lipstick on her and some eyeshadow. spruce her up a little. business as usual.
between the campaign bribes, lobbying money, the GS alumnae network and TBTF Godman is golden. and they know it.
You know it feels weird, responding to my doppelgänger...but I just did.
Yes, based upon the date you joined, I admit that you were first and I was second with the idea for "cogitive dissonance."
In my defense, you are speaking about your personal affliction and I'm talking about the world's.
That is funny shit.
Amazing. That's just what I was thinking but to my benefit.
Backroom 30 million dollar settlement over lobster dinner. I wonder how long it will take them to act...
News flash: The crackdown has been postponed, apparently $1 billion doesn't buy as much whitewash as it used to.
News flash: The crackdown has been postponed, apparently $1 billion doesn't buy as much whitewash as it used to.
Good to hear this news.
TD: your comments about SEC (and FINRA) are right on target. Seems they have to be spoon fed info to get crackin', except in the Madoff case where they just kept spitting the spoon out.
The only way this is going to be resolved is by having a genuine tiger in charge of the SEC who will NOT go for the settlement when there is a chance for criminal prosecution that will result in jail time. Until that happens, companies will just write the check and further screw shareholders.
Is there an office pool on how much money does Goldman needs to bribe SEC and Finra.
Someone should audit SEC and Finra workers bank accounts. Follow the money like they said.
FINRA is a regulatory body made up by the industry itself, so it's conflicted. But many people associated with Wall Street swear that self-regulation actually works. I don't.
The SEC could refer this out to the Department of Justice as a criminal matter. But they first have to determine which law may have been broken that requires criminal prosecution. Or the NY AG could take action applying NY laws, as Spitzer used to do.
Ben; a question; can a lack of due diligence ( either internal or external ) be qualified as breaking the law; especially if the lack has proved to result in massive decade long frauds and substantial damage to a wast number of people; prime examples Madoff and Enron.
I work compliance for a reasonably sized ($1.5b+ AUM), yet largely unknown RIA. Prior to that, I worked in compliance for the largest insurance company in the world (not named AIG or domiciled in Germany) in their largest branch office in the states.
Lack of due diligence has been cited by the SEC and FINRA in enforcement actions. Whether it's criminal or not depends on the nature of the event and how connected the person you were supposed to be conducting the DD on is. As a compliance professional, I'm appalled at the risk managers out there who let their firms invest in a product with results that published facts couldn't match or verify. There's plenty of blame for Maddoff's scheme to go around and the place I start is with my fellow compliance officers.
thank you for the information. appreciated.
Would this be an appropriate time to ask if someone could state when Lehman officially created a Risk Management department?
Andy, i hope you mean, they and all the rest of the TBTF deserved to fail...Lehman was denied a 6 billion dollar bridge loan, and their request for bank holding status was put off to the point of no return, but you know two days after the fail of Lehman, all the bets on Lehman were paid with first an 85BILLION dollar bridge loan, but now, our government is in for 185 billion and counting...yea, they and all the rest of their brothers deserved to get reorganized, but, instead, they were strengthened by Lehman's chosen demise--like controlled demolition...it let all those affiliates and subsidiaries of the major IB's win the Lehman bet, and it promised a more secure future for Morgan and Goldman now that their biggest competitor was OUT.
Yes, FINRA is composed of industry members -- but one has to keep in mind that the "industry" isn't exactly matching Goldman's performance and would like to know wtf is going on.
The sad part is that it's immaterial. Let's say they fine them $100mm (which is never going to happen), then GS screams injustice while Blankfein and Co pat themselves on the back for dodging another bullet.
Even so, a $100 Million fine would only represent one below average day of "trading" (aka front running)
True...
They should just skip the fine and ban it, with immediate arrest of top management on subsequent violations.
...With an immediate visit by the special Chinese 'last bus ride you'll ever take' buses.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/business/25bernanke.html?_r=1&hp
Ben is here to stay....argh!
Phoque!
At this point I could care less who the chairman is as long as the institution still exists.
I hope that was a joke.
No...it doesn't matter who the current head of the hydra is as long as the beast lives; it will just be a question of how much we get screwed.
I have to disagree. The Fed has no purpose whatsoever other than to supposedly set short term interest rates and keep the banking system afloat. Well the market does the former and the latter is collapsing, which is why TBTF has sent us trillions in debt. Why do you want a central banker? Wouldn't the whole world be better off without central banks? The Fed is not a necessary entity. Just a nice little idea by JPM to save his money in 1914 that has weaviled it's way into this ridiculously "important" status.
ok ok just a breakdown of communication here...I am a big critic of credit based money. Having the United States Note back as the currency would be much better than the system we have now, which IMO is the definition of perpetual theft.
This echoes what Ron Paul has been saying recently...
I like Ron Paul but haven't heard his latest other than Fed Transparency. If I sound like him, maybe his ideas make sense. When I was seriously trading on the Street, central banks were trying to prop up currencies, etc. and getting nowhere. They are a sham. My time in Japan in 1992 taught me enough about the MOF that they were quite fine with Zombie banks. That was 2 years after they cracked. Give me one instance where a central bank has served a legitimate purpose and then I will reconsider. And if you reference Helicopter Ben, it will be discarded. More than Lehman had to fail or we wouldn't be where we are now.
And people are still making the mantra, "thank God we didn't socialize the banks". It is ok for bank after bank after bank to fail, and for the pieces to be sold, and so forth, but for the agents of the FED, the only answer is to GIVE THEM MONEY TO SURVIVE--this was simply a well designed bank robbery. And i still don't understand how that the majority of the people in our country can let this just slip by.
Thank God we socialized the banks should be the mantra for those that are ill-informed. You, dear lady, hit the nail on the head with the Robbery part--but we didn't rob the banks. We robbed ourselves. Perhaps if we weren't 50th in the world in terms of education and the US population wasn't embroiled in watching reality shows versus reading ZH and many other fine bloggers, then it would make sense. But we are under a mass enebriation, a right wing -- left wing propaganda fight that skirts all the issues that truly confront us. It is a sad, sad state of affairs, for which I can offer no comfort or solace. Just stay here for the truth and make your own decisions based on the messages brought forth.
I must not have been clear enough for you to respond to my comment the way you did Mr. Beale-- what i was saying is that while people were getting the idea that the world would come to an end if we didn't listen to paulson/bernake about all their demands, these two were also making statements about not wanting to "socialize" the banks which was really nothing other than a scare tactic to do the big bankheist.
Lehman, Merrill, Goldman, Morgan and Citi were all going down, and if paulson and bernake had been honest, they would have taken one day to ask for the authority to unwind these behemoths, and then possible three weeks of a closed market to accomplish the merger, sale or unwinding of these entities. Yes, we and our children have been robbed.
I am now certain that Howard is a master of the "vehemetly disagreeing with the complete opposite of what you are saying" technique.
Complete and utter misinterpretation of what you are saying and, earlier, what I was saying was frustrating as first but now it is just frickin hilarious.
I saw that and i was surprised by his reply to you, too!
--he seems like he wants a fight or something, and looking for a chip to knock off of someone's shoulder, but there isn't one there. Maybe he will get some sleep and cool off, and read more carefully...who knows?
I guess I agreed with you in a way that you misunderstood. I totally agreed with your swipe at socializing the banks...I was just taking it a step further to the sheeple. Sorry for any misunderstanding....Reread what I wrote. It was not in any way attacking you but reinforcing with further evidence.
Thank you for the note Howard_Beale.
And since i have misunderstood you, i hope you will forgive me.
Thank you again.
I'll have to remember the "vehemently disagreeing with the complete opposite of what you are saying" technique"... it seems to be quite perplexing for an opponent who isn't quite yet your opponent but you might want him to be your opponent...
Forgive me for stating the obvious...
:-) What's up with the avatar change tonight...
I'm still thinking on that... don't want to rush into something I might regret... my paperbag is serving me well... and by the way I think you keep worse hours than Cheeky :-)
Time to watch John Stewart
Oh.... he is TIVO'd so I can watch him as many times as I want...
If you space down 2-3 times, the text will not get covered up by the sites identifiers when you are responding.
I don't follow... when I look at the comments on my screen all looks well... do you see something different on yours?
The first few replies to a comment are fine but if it turns out that there are a bunch of replies to replies, the thread spreads out and for some reason, the avatar, and time stamp are covering up the first few lines. Maybe it is something about my computer, i am not very saavy about computer stuff, so i don't know. Maybe i'll email Marla.
Oh thanks... I noticed that on one of my last comments with a narrow column width... nice tip..
Ok, here is my non techie explanation. I just figured out that if i have my full screen with this window, the script isn't messed up. But i was using this and a bunch of other windows, so not the full screen, and as such, it squinches up the comments, especially if there are replies on replies....glad we got that figured!
OK, now it isn't looking that way on my screen anymore, so i have no idea what the difference is--gremlins (just kidding)! Maybe i had too many windows open or something?
The "thank God we didnt socialize the bank" remark was to poke a hole in this mantra because every day, banks are failing, and no one is calling what the FDIC does "socialism". So, as i was saying, the scare tactic to say, "oooh we dont'want to socialize the banks" was cleaverly used by paulson and bernake, to accomplish the bigbankbonanza which was the biggest bank heist ever.
I got that ...and appreciate everything you have posted. I am not a fighter,especially when you are so correct. And I did understand your sarcasm in the original post....I was just trying to follow it up with the reasons moronic sheeple seem to buy into the argument. Sorry you took it as an attack as it was not. Good night agrotera--and to all, a good sleep until tomorrow finds another day.....Scarlett
Thank you Scarlett, you are very kind and i know that i misunderstood you, and i feel so bad about it, please forgive me.
And with a beautiful name like Scarlett, why are you not using your Scarlett O'hara avatar? (I love the Scarlett philosophy--i'll worry about that tomorrow!)
Hope you have a good night, and thank you for taking the time to clarify, and for your kindness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mDi49Qj1xk
Close enough.
Let's see if he's confirmed. I'll bet he gets a run for his money this time around.
BTW, the FT also recommended that he be reappointed. I don't understand what's going through their heads.
The US Government should mandate GS to review Finra and the SEC to see whether their investigative and enforcement procedures could be steamlined and improved. Like Pim(p)co, maybe GS would be willing to do it for 1$...
If we want to get real, how about if you go into public service at the SEC, FINRA, or any other financial regulatory agency, you don't get to work on Wall Street (in the broadest definition) for 10 years after you leave. How about a conflict of interest clause that stops this horseshit from continuing. Furthermore, every person that works in "public service" serving nothing but the special interests (Shapiro would flunk this easily) has to pass a ZH captcha with no calculators and get 20 in a row correct or they have to go work at McDonalds, in S Korea. That would work for me.
.......
"Last time we checked, the SEC's 2009 budget was almost $1 billion. What the hell does this money go for aside for covering up massive market malfeasance and catching an occasional Ponzi after decades of ignoring incriminatory materials?"
Lol...
anyway..lets not get too excited, let actions speak for themselves...
You are obviously in touch with poeple of influence on these issues. how do we make our disgust known?
YES! Prosecute the oligarchy!
"...at the end of the day the only way to fix a broken system is via a thousand "citizen's" cuts and bypassing Schapiro's utterly useless enterprise..."
Can you ("Tyler Durden") elaborate about what the citizens are supposed to do? What is it that should receive the slow slicing of death?
Can you ("Tyler Durden") elaborate about what the citizens are supposed to do? What is it that should receive the slow slicing of death?
I'm not TD, but if you need someone to tell you what should be re-organized and/or broken; then i fear you have a major problem. And also, you might want to do a little check on your " attention span " capability.
We know what should be done. We (ordinary, non-connected people) feel powerless and don't know what we can do that will accomplish anything useful. The stated purpose of Zero Hedge is to be a force for change. Tyler is doing his part. All that is being asked is what if anything we can do?
Cheeky, i look for your posts and love to read what you have to say. You have to realize that in your position, you have an opportunity to lead, and sometimes people just need to ask questions and share...maybe you need to cut our friend here a little slack, and offer an apology? It's all for the good of the order don't you think? (i am very sensitive, please don't be mad at me for giving advice!)
Don't vote for major party candidates anymore. That's the best you can do
Ben_the_Bald, I hope you won't mind a suggestion from me--please read my post #46819...
In my opinion, the crimes are too big for any kind of "agency" to handle because it is that the whole system is corrupt. The only way to affect change is to fully grasp the situation, then, help inform others of the truth, and after that, the answers are still waiting to be determined but probably having a whole new set of elected officials who do not take any money from anyone, would be a great place to start, and term limits...until the country knows that our country's currency has been debased by the robbing and pillaging of a privately held company and all of it's affiliates and agents, that we are supposed to revere, then nothing can happen.
Party over on main stream...Bernanke to be reappointed
SEC, FINRA = Capt. Renault (Casablanca)
I bet the boys at GS are losing some sleep tonight! NOT! Throw the regulators a bone to get them and the public off the scent of the trail. Pay small fine, admit no wrongdoing and repeat all while the big crime is right there in the open for all to see. Just insane. I honestly don't understand how they think we are so stupid not to know what is going on. The people are officially powerless.
The growing complexity of our society is going to be its downfall. In the case of the financial world you have two very complex organizations SEC and Finra trying to regulate and oversee the extremely complex and opaque financial world... complexity overseeing even greater complexity is almost like taking Complex Industry A * Complex Regulator B * Complex Regulator C = UltraComplex Chaotic Mess ABC. (Cheeky can probably come up with some ultra-cool math equation).
It is applicable to almost every industry that we have... from food producers to nursing homes... the complexity is so significant that very few people can actually get their head around the massive number of regulations and knowledge needed to operate within the industry... but yet they can easily find the few loopholes that exist and efficiently exploit them.
Additionally, our society has moved from "where everybody knows your name" to "I could give a rat's ass what your name is"... so rather that feel an obligation to "do the right thing" because you will see that person in church next Sunday... they feel free to impersonally screw them over to make a quick buck.
Bingo! They can find the loopholes since they are usually the ones who baked them into the regulatory cake.... mmm cake!
I agree with you... industries lobby for exactly what they want... and can out-maneuver the legislative process... all you need is one 'bought and paid for' legislator to present new legislation and be the cheerleader to push it through...
S={ f(a),f(b),f(c)}
{ f(a),f(b),f(c)}/N+ and/or N*
(a,b,c ) e if N+ > 1
(a,b,c ) e if N* > 1
S(N+)(a,b,c)= N iff N=/> 3
P(N*)(a,b,c)= N iff N=/> 1
if N+=/> 3 than Ae=1
if N*= 1 than E2e=/> (2e/(3e-( e iff 1/3S R<1))
thats it LOL
nice
OOps
That is just great... and the funniest thing is that I can't figure out if it's for real... or just a bunch of BS... is it real?
It's CB. It doesn't have to be real. He just has a natural talent and I, for one, am voting him on the next edition of Britain's Got Talent.
ok, uncalled for man ( oops; girl ); totally uncalled for.
Oh but you are soooo good. And I adore you. So there.
" I'm as mad as hell,. and I'm not going to take this anymore!!" ..."
I may have to get a new avatar--Mrs. CB. Don't tell TD to block it. Your brain is very sexy.
no more mrs.CB for me; two where enough.
Join me higher in the posts by a guy that thinks there is a need for central banks.
Howard, who's photo is that
ZH is to financial people what WoW is to virgins.
You must have done well on the SATs.
I have to agree that Cheeky's brain is pretty sexy... what can come out of it with such a short lead time can be amazing...
.......
yes its real; N+ is if the operator of the elements of the set ( a,b,c ) is addition; and N* if the operator of the elements of the set is multiplication. N denotes operator being done on natural numbers and R denotes real numbers.
Cheeky, please translate this for me--it will torture me to not get what you are saying here. Thank you!
considering the formulas A+B+C=ABC, or A*B*C=ABC; set of elements a,b,c which operation is addition must have the following properties; all elements of the set a,b,c must satisfy that they are all a number which are equal or greater than the smallest natural number ( 1 ) for the set which has operator + to have a sum equal or larger than 3. if the operation of the set is multiplication than 2 or more elements of the set a,b,c must satisfy that they are a number larger than the smallest natural number ( 1 ) and one and only one element of the set can be a rational number also smaller than the smallest natural number ( 1 ) so that the operational outcome of those elements satisfies the pre requirement that the multiplication of the set elements is larger than the the smallest value and the largest value of an element of the set a,b,c. Also one of the two or more elements of the set must have a value X so that is larger than the element of the set which is a rational number by difference of the value of the rational number from the smallest natural number. so if the value of the element of the set which is a rational number equals to 0.2, one of the two elements which are natural numbers must have a value of at least 1.8.
Thank you so much for your thoughtful consideration Cheeky! I am still confused though. Would you please turn this into a narrative so that i can understand this as it relates to Minnesota Nice's thought? I do understand the math, but i don't understand how it connects to MinnesotaNice's side thought of his statement equalling these equations?
Thank you so kindly!!!
Agrotera... if you say you understood that translation... then I am going to feel really 'not smart' :-)
MinnesotaNice, you made me laugh!!! Well, the only thing that i get here is that you asked Cheeky to articulate some problems in a math equation. I've got the "notsmart" feeling right now too. But, it is true, that with most everything, one can turn into a math equation.
So, maybe Cheeky's can give us some opening remarks in order to help the "notsmart" like you and me.
Another thing you could do is maybe use a multiple analysis of variance to come up with some simple outcomes from this complex problem.
actually its pretty basic. lets say A represents SEC B represents banks and C represents the stock market. For all three to be efficient the formula for their efficiency has to satisfy what i wrote the above. But that's more pure mathematics than applied one. I don't know any better, never like applied math that much ( except for non-Euclidean geometry which is used in special and general relativity ). Lets say 1 is a minimal value SEC actions have to produce to keep the overall system going and not transforming into chaotic or devastating. If the general contribution of the SEC drops below that value it stops being a contributor to the system and starts behaving as a parasite. But it hard to write down in mathematical formula linguistic terms like value etc.
Ok that is great, thank you so much for drawing the picture for me Cheeky!
Applied math appeals to my sensibilities with my OLAP and MDX programming. Set theory with a bit of math goes a long way to manipulating disparate data. Thanks for the levity CB!
yo SV; set theory can pretty much explain everything, and what it can explain by itself; it can when you use mathematical logic; just apply it as it should and you're ahead of 99.9% percent of either problems or people. As i said i do not like applied mathematics; although i do use the elementary axioms of set theory to diversified philosophy and all the axioms of mathematical logic for my everyday stuff. On a professional side; my business is basically structured on the same principles; andv so is my academia. Oh, and no problem. Glad to be here.
Math and logic are fun. I am trying to get a firm grip on fractals as I think they work best for describing infinitely complex systems. More efficient IMO.
to a point yes. basically they " break " the system. and they are basically completely paradoxical they behave in a un-orthodox way. But, yeah if you have a good countable method and measure method you can do wonders with them, but if talking about infinite fractals you would need to know set theory; because there are various kinds of infinities.
Hrm...I'll try to keep up here since I am not as educated in mathematics as you are, but if one were to use fractals to model the physical universe (nevermind finances which definitely have the currency as the limit of how far you can "zoom in") then infinite fractals should be unncecesary since (unless I've missed something) there is a finite foundation: the Plank constant(s). Although if you mean that the amount of interations is infinite then I can see your point.
I haven't studied set theory since 6th grade so a refresher and further education won't hurt regardless.
well yes; Planck constants limits the infinite fractalization; but fundamentally if you want to discuss fractals you have to divide them; basically Koch curves are purely abstract and have a production rule F---->F-F++F-F which is basically both applicable when it comes to physics and when it comes to mathematics; but in physics it is limited to an interval of {hV( Planck constant), 15x10e9 light years )} while in pure mathematics that interval is {-inf.,+inf}. Also, physics has a problem with multi-dimensionality of some building blocks of known universe; and basically needs to use fractals in a multi-dimensional Re(n) to theoretically explain the nature of it. But i don't want to go into technicalities here; but lets say that while our universe can support limited fractalization when it comes to Newtons mechanics; it doesn't go all that well when it comes to quantum; especially with photons and hypothetical gravitons. I mean string theory is also ridiculous, but it offers more logical solutions when it comes to unification.
i had to put it back; i felt odd having a neanderthal as an avatar ( i mean Chabal not Obama )
So why do you think string theory is ridiculous...
I am still in a quantum state in terms of my view of quantum mechanics. Some of the implications bother me as well, especially the ones concerning photons. If light is the pure "time" aspect of "spacetime" then how can time be in a quantum state?
Just a thought... neither time, nor speed of light are physical constants... both are relative... time is relative to our frame of reference... and speed of light slow downs when it travels through water. So is spacetime simply an illusion? Do we simply create 'the arrow of time' in our own minds... and does the past, present, and future of time co-exist. Probably a bit to philosophical for this late at night... should be signing off soon.
i think Einstein misunderstood both Heidegger and Kant when it came to time. Read Sein un Zeit ( Being and Time ) to know more. Basically Kant said space and time are determinants of Being; while Heidegger dismissed the notion of space as a determinant of Being and only concentrated on time. Mathematics supports him ( while i have my doubts there ) while physics only supports Kant and not Heidegger. Philosophy ( the highest kind of it ) answers questions which physics can not; while the opposite is not the case. If you really want to understand time read Sein und Zeit and maybe some basic philosophy of mathematics to get a hold of it. Oh, about photons; basically they explained it trough n-dimensions ( which is basically pure dogma ); also the notion of Nothing and potentiality/instability expressed trough probability bothers me like a mofo. Its an easy way out; but its not an explanation. Its more of a consensus.
I do however like thinking about 'time' in the way Einstein described in a letter to a friend's widow: "Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion".
Since I don't have your strong math skills... I tend to be a bit more philosophical... and read volumes in these areas.
MinnesotaNice; mathematics has nothing to do with time; Platonist will say it completely stands independent of either time or space, formalist that is only set of rules etc. All of those notions are purely dogmatic and most mathematicians don't like to talk about that; My view is that mathematics is, as language, an evolutionary tool concentrated on the abstract part of the Cogito. Philosophy will stay the Queen of Mankind as long as there is a mankind which wants to be ruled by the light of reason and not the darkness of emotion.
It is good to know that philosophy reigns... and now I am off to bed and will leave you, Andy, and Howard (or Mrs. Howard as he/she seems to be known tonight) to banter the rest of the night.
good night Minnesota; I'm of to; its 8 am here and i should get some sleep. been nice discussing this stuff with you.
To a certain extent math is still based on faith; it is based on a set of unproven axioms. Philosophy will always be the foundation of reason IMO.
Regarding time, I have indeed considered either the co-existance of past future and present and also the possibility that none exist and that time is not an arrow or a line but instead a point or a nothing. I came to the conclusion that time is light or maybe even the inverse of light since light does not age as it travels space so it in effect carries time over space. I am still thinking about it, since this definition does not help that much since I do not understand light no matter what quantum mechanics says....as you said it feels like a bailout to bring probability into it.
Maybe a fresh start from Cogito Ergo Sum will help.
This is the best tangent, ever!
Cheeky, I want to have your baby.
You may be correct, MN ... the heightened sensitivity to butterfly's wings that our increasingly complex and tightly coupled financial hegemony must suffer fortells a meltdown to come of epic proportions.
How eloquent... how come I can never come up with such concise thoughts... but that is what I really meant to say :-)
Completely agree. Just because of the sheer size of our society as a whole, there will always be a tenedency for excessive elverage. There will always be entities trying to gain as much of this leverage as possible and if any one entitity gets any good at it, pretty soon the very limit of how far the scales can go, how much total leverage there IS, nevermind, how much one entity has (because if one entity has a lot that leverage is leveraged to the other entitites and so on and so on), will be stretched to their ultimate limit. That is what I believe we are seeing now. The great deleveraging is not just about money.
I never really thought about it until I read what you wrote... but we could experience a massive deleveraging in societal complexity as our next black swan event...
Lets just hope that it doesn't go too far. If you look at completely deleveraged galaxy, cell or any system for that matter it doesn't look pretty.
I think Asimov had the right idea on how to prevent it from going too far with the Foundation. Funny how that book seemed completely irrelevant five years ago when I read it.
I haven't read that book... but just looked it up and it looks interesting... its always fascinated me how 'old' sci-fi concepts seem to materialize in the present/future.
On a side note... I just bought Flatland... and am waiting for a quiet time to read it... people who live in 2 dimensions... and have no idea that a 3rd dimension exists... so then extrapolate that to our 3 known dimensions (and yes I know that some people count time as the 4th)... and what other dimensions could we have no idea about.
Re Complexity, see Tainter, Joseph. The Collapse of Complex Societies. 1988. (Foundational for J. Diamond's work)
Re Time, see Augustine. Confessions, Book XI. (If you have Neo-Platonist leanings, this will--how you say-- blow your mind)
Abelard
Thanks for the tip... I will read it...
Re Complexity, see Tainter, Joseph. The Collapse of Complex Societies. 1988. (Foundational for J. Diamond's work)
Re Time, see Augustine. Confessions, Book XI. (If you have Neo-Platonist leanings, this will--how you say-- blow your mind)
Abelard
Once again, I have no idea what you are saying. Leverage is always about money. We are deleveraging on a grand scale--from consumers, small businesses, small banks, to the few remaining I-Banks--sans-GS--that leaves MS. The fact that we are deleveraging is good, but the pain (that the ridiculous measures by the Fed are trying to lessen by monetizing our debt) are only pointing to an inevitable crash of confidence in the US globally. So, yes, it's all about money. How can you refute that?
I have absolutely no idea how you did it, but you somehow managed to misinterpret what I was saying to be the complete opposite of what I am saying. Quite remarkable.
How do you get to thinking that me saying:
"it doesn't matter who the current head of the hydra is as long as the beast lives; it will just be a question of how much we get screwed."
means that I want the FED to continue to exist?
How do you see me saying that we have excessive leverage to mean that we should not be deleveraging if I am labeling the existing leverage excessive?
Mr. Beale...
Leverage does not have to be just about money... some additional definitions are: "to exert power or influence on" or "power or ability to act or to influence people, events, decisions, etc..." or "the mechanical advantage or power gained by using a lever"... so if we have levered up the complexity of our society through intangible complex systems that we have created... could a case not be made that they could be delevered...
I've been thinking about this a lot lately, too.
If you think about a generation ago, plastics weren't used so widely for packaging, and the whole idea of convenience food was a TV dinner. With all that convenience, came packaging, waste, and leveraged use of our resources. That is just one of the themes that i have been thinking about lately as we are moving, like you and MN are saying, a society less levered on many levels.
hence, our Tax system to a T
munt
So, w/ these last 2 articles, market up 150 tomorrow? Probably be chalked up to Big Ben reappointed
Futures are not responding at this moment. Have to wait and see.
thanks, somehow this market just cant go down. drives me f-ing crazy
You know it just hit me while reading this article. With Bear and Lehman out of the way their is nobody left to stop GS from blatant manupulation.
Welcome to 2009....long sleep, eh?
LOL; you're a fast learner aren't you